Allahabad High Court 1. Writ Of Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable Against Judicial Order Of Magistrate /CWC Sending Minor Victim To Children Protection Homes:Allahabad High Court (FB) [Rachna & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.] A Full Bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma, Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Sanjay Yadav held that an order passed by a Judicial...
Allahabad High Court
1. Writ Of Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable Against Judicial Order Of Magistrate /CWC Sending Minor Victim To Children Protection Homes:Allahabad High Court (FB) [Rachna & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.]
A Full Bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma, Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Sanjay Yadav held that an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate or Child Welfare Committee sending victim to women protection homes/child care homes cannot be challenged or set aside in a writ of habeas corpus. Subsequently, the Bench also observed that the detention of a corpus in such child care homes cannot be treated as an illegal detention.
It was dealing with the reference in a habeas corpus petition seeking directions on Superintendent of Children Home (Girl) to release the minor girl namely Anchal, aged 17 years, who was allegedly illegally detained in the Children Home.
2. Ladies' Toilets In Police Stations: Allahabad High Court Asks UP Home Secretary To File Affidavit Or Remain Personally Present Before Court [Anjali Pandey & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Yadav and Jayant Banerji told the Home Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Government to file an affidavit in respect of steps taken for construction of ladies' toilets in each Police Stations in the state. it further told the State counsel that in case an affidavit is not filed, the Secretary should personally remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing.
The development comes few days after the Court expressed displeasure at the fact no immediate steps have been taken by the UP Government for availability of toilets/washrooms and other essential amenities for female police personnel at different police stations.
3. Police Were At Informant's Doorstep, Yet Prompt Reporting Of Incident Was Withheld: Allahabad HC Acquits Murder Accused Over Delay Of 3.5 Hrs In Lodging Of FIR [Mukesh Tiwari v. State of UP]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Manoj Misra and Sanjay Kumar Pachor allowed a criminal appeal and set aside an order of conviction passed under Section 302 of IPC for the offence of murder, citing a delay of 3 hours 20 minutes in lodging of FIR against the alleged offence. It held that the aforesaid delay was 'unreasonable' in view of the fact that the Police authorities arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident.
The order stated, "Normally, a delay of few hours, particularly in night incidents, might not be considered significant but here the police were at the doorstep of the informant and the injured (Pratap Shankar Mishra) was carried to the hospital by the police, with Mazrubi Chitthi, and a so-called witness, who was there at the place of incident and happens to be the brother of the eye-witness, yet prompt reporting of the incident was withheld, which suggests that either the incident was not witnessed or if witnessed, the identity of the assailant was not certain, therefore, the guess-work delayed the FIR."
4. 'Evidence Of Interested Witnesses Should Be Subjected To Careful Scrutiny & Accepted With Caution': Reiterates Allahabad High Court [Rampal Singh & Ors. v. State of UP]
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Manoj Misra and Saumitra Dayal Singh held that the testimony of an interested witness, though admissible, should be accepted by the Court after a careful scrutiny and corroboration with other materials placed on record. It observed, "an interested witness must be tested more carefully before any firm conclusion may be reached thereon."
In this context, the Bench referred to a decision of the Apex Court in Jalpat Rai v. State of Haryana, 2011 (14) SCC 208, where it was held, "All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."
Other developments:
- CAA Protests: "His Movement Could Be Controlled Through Suitable Conditions": Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Student Activist
- Tandav Row: Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench Extends Interim Protection From Arrest For Amazon Prime Video Head Aparna Purohit In Lucknow FIR Till April 6
Bombay High Court
Chief Justice Dipankar Datta invoked the iconic American epic – Titanic – to express his views on a PIL seeking to declare members of the legal fraternity, including Judges, as frontline workers and to vaccinate them for the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus on a priority basis.
"Have you seen the English movie Titanic? Do you recollect the captain of the ship? Captain Smith. When the ship runs into rough weather, what does the captain have to do?" Justice Dipankar Datta rhetorically asked. "He should be the last one to leave. I am the captain of the ship here. First comes society, then my judiciary and last me," the CJ added.
A Single Bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal refused anticipatory bail to a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) from Maval Court, in Maharashtra, accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding a bribe and accepting it through an associate, to pass a favourable order.
It observed that JMFC Archana Jatkar was occupying a very "responsible position," and a thorough investigation is required considering the seriousness of the allegations against her. "Society's faith in the judicial system should not be shaken by such instances. The investigating agency needs to go deep in the matter," the court observed.
3. Bombay High Court Refuses Transit Pre-Arrest Bail To ET Now Anchor In Rape Case [Varun Hiremath v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.]
A single bench of Justice PD Naik refused transit anticipatory bail to Mumbai-based ET Now anchor and analyst Varun Hiremath who is accused of raping a 22-year-old woman from Pune in a hotel in Delhi, last month.
It heard the transit pre-arrest application on March 1 and rejected it the same day. "There is no dispute about powers to grant transit anticipatory bail. The applicant is charged under Section 376 of IPC. The applicant may approach the appropriate court. I am not inclined to grant such relief in this case," the Bench. It however, clarified that it was not rejecting the application on merits.
4. Doctor Asked To Keep Clinic Open During Pandemic Not Eligible For PMGKP Compensation Unless Requisitioned For COVID19 Duty : Bombay HC [Kiran Bhaskar Surgade v. Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors.]
Private practitioners who opened up their clinics during the pandemic from the fear of FIRs being registered against them for disobeying the civic chief's directions would not be eligible for the Rs. 50 lakh compensation under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package (PMGKP) if they succumbed to the virus unless they were specifically assigned to treat Covid-19 patients, the Bombay High Court has said.
A division bench of Justices Sharukh Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla dismissed a petition filed by Navi Mumbai resident Kiran Surgade, seeking compensation for her husband's death, who passed away due to the Covid-19 virus on June 10, 2020. Her claim under the PMGKP was rejected by New India Assurance Company on September 20, last year. "Considering that Dr Surgade's services were not requisitioned as mandated under the Scheme, we are unable to extend the applicability of the Scheme to persons who fall outside the ambit thereof", the Court said.
The Maharashtra State government orally assured a Bench led by Justice SS Shinde that it would not take coercive action against Former Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) student leader Sharjeel Usmani in the 2021 Elgaar Parishad case, till Monday. It orally also asked Usmani to ensure he co-operates with the investigation.
On February 2, 2021, the Police registered an FIR against Usmani under section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place..) of the IPC on a complaint by the secretary of the Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha, Pradeep Gawade. Gawde is a former member of ABVP. It was alleged that Usmani made offensive statements against the 'Hindu community,' 'Indian Judiciary' and 'parliament'.
6. "We Don't Want Lip Service; You Have No Regard For Human Life" - Bombay High Court On Illegal Constructions In Maharashtra In Suo-Motu PIL [High Court on its own Motion (in the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and Ors.]
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni castigated eight municipal corporations and the Maharashtra State's Urban Development Department (UDD) for their failure to comply with an order to provide information on illegal constructions in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and action taken against them.
The court held that the affidavits filed by BMC and Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation were mere "lip service" to its directions. "We cannot but express our shock and dismay at the apathy and indifference of the respondents," the bench observed in its order.
A division bench of Justices JJ Shinde and Manish Pitale asked the Central Bureau of Investigation and the State Special Investigation Team (SIT) when will they complete their probe into the murders of communist leader, Govind Pansare and anti-superstition crusader Narendra Dabholkar, respectively.
The HC is monitoring the investigation into the murders of Dabholkar on August 20, 2013, and CPI leader Govind Pansare on February 20, 2015, on a clutch of petitions by their families. It asked for status reports after it was informed that the trial in journalist Gauri Lankesh's 2017 murder, in Karnataka, with a similar set of accused, has already begun but the investigation is still not complete, in Maharashtra.
Other developments:
- Bombay HC Grants Interim Injunction To Actor-Producer Nikhil Dwivedi Against Actor Kamal R. Khan From Making Defamatory Statements Against Him
- Bombay High Court Pulls Up An Additional Sessions Judge For Using Slang/Foul Words 'Disrespectful To Women' In Rape Case
- 'Equitable Distribution' Not Always 'Equal', MPID Court Not Correct In Directing Sums To Be Distributed To NSEL Investors Equally: Bombay HC
- Inexplicable and Tragic – Bombay High Court Delivers Judgement on Uncontested Petition Pending For 31 Years
Calcutta High Court
1. Pendency Of Cases Under Animal/Forest Laws: Calcutta High Court Directs All Subordinate Courts To Proceed With Such Cases On 'War-Footing' [Manika Barman v. State of West Bengal & Ors.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee directed the Courts subordinate to it to expedite the adjudication of matters pending under different animal laws and forest laws. It remarked, "The judiciary should be prompt to ensure that all allegations of intrusion into the domain of the animals which result in allegations as to commission of offences gain prompt attention, requisite and timely adjudication."
The Court issued this direction to all the Courts subordinate to it, in view of the fact that presently, there are 1140 cases pending under the forest laws before the courts below. It directed all the subordinate courts where such matters are pending, to forthwith proceed on a war footing in all such matters. It further added, "Since the victims in all those cases are not 'State' as is understood in the Constitution and the laws but primarily the animals who are voice-less creatures who cannot be represented before any adjudicating authority except by the duly authorised representative of the State Government."
2. RBI Is 'State' Under Article 12; Private Banks Discharging Public Functions Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court [M/s Pearson Drums & Barrels Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager, Consumer Education & Protection Cell of Reserve Bank of India & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that th Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution and thus, a writ petition is maintainable against it. It further states that even private banks cannot seek refuge of being non-State actors, for the purpose of challenging maintainability of a writ petition against them, as their functions pertain to discharge of public duties.
The Bench refused to apply the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas & Ors., (2003) 10 SCC 733, that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against private banks.
3. Nepali Man In Custody For 40 Years: Calcutta High Court To Examine If The Prosecution Be Terminated In Suo Moto Proceedings [The Court on its own Motion: In re : UTP Dipak Joshi, lodged in Dum Dum Central Correctional Home]
Dealing with a case initiated by the Court on its motion-related to a person of Nepali origin, who was arrested about 41 years ago and since then, he is under detention, a bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Aniruddha Roy decided to examine if the prosecution against him should be terminated.
The Court heard the parties on the basis of an affidavit placed on record by the Consulate General of Nepal which stated that Joshi was arrested about 41 years ago and since then, he is under detention. It also came to light that reports are awaited as regards his mental status because the issue in question is - as to whether he is fit to stand trial on a charge for having committed an offence.
Other developments:
- WB Assembly Polls 2021- Calcutta High Court Set Aside Election Commission's Rejection Of Trinamool Congress Candidate's Nomination
- Erroneous Order Of Returning Officer That Do Not Hinder Conduct Of Election Should Not Be Interfered With By Courts U/A 226: Calcutta High Court
Delhi High Court
1. Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [Foundation For Independent Journalism & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.]
A division bench headed by Chief Justice DN Patel issued notice on petition challenging Information Technology (Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, notified by the Centre on February 25, under the Information Technology Act to the extent it regulates digital news media.
It was hearing the petition filed by 'Foundation for Independent Journalism'(a non-profit company which owns 'The Wire'), Founder and Editor-in-Chief of 'The News Minute' Dhanya Rajendran and Founding Editor of 'The Wire' MK Venu . Sr. Adv. Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the petitioner argued that despite the Supreme Court striking down S.66A of the Information Technology Act, which had similar provisions for regulating content, the Centre has now brought out these Rules to do indirectly what it cannot do directly.
In a major relief to a lesbian woman married against her wishes to a man of her family's choice, a bench of Justice Mukta Gupta of the Delhi High Court today issued notice on the woman's petition and directed the Delhi Police to ensure complete protection to the woman. Taking a progressive stance on the case, the court also interacted with the woman and her husband, and directed that steps may be taken at the earliest for dissolution of the marriage.
"An adult woman cannot be forced to stay with her marital or parental family against her wishes," the Court said.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a lesbian woman who had been married against her wishes to a man and was threatened to be "cured" of her sexual orientation. She escaped from her marital home on Mar 7, 2021 and sought the assistance of ANHAD - an NGO in New Delhi. She was then provided temporary shelter at a safe house run by another NGO, but her family members reached the premises of the safe house and asked for the Petitioner to be handed over to them.
3. Delhi High Court Directs Special Arrangements For Cancer Survivor In Delhi Higher Judicial Services Mains Exam 2019, Refuses Deferral [Ravi Shekhar Mangal Murti v. Delhi High Court]
Hearing a plea of a cancer survivor who moved the Court seeking deferral of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (Mains) Examination 2019, until the Covid-19 vaccination of lawyers is complete, a bench of Justices Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Sidharth Mridul directed for special arrangements to be made for the petitioner-lawyer who moved the court for his appearance for the exam.
However, the court has refused his prayer of postponement of the exam which is scheduled for tomorrow and the day after (i.e. March 13 & 14).
Hearing a petition seeking directions for the expeditious filling up of vacancies in the National Commission For Minorities, a Single Bench of Justice Prathiba Singh rapped the Central Government for an affidavit filed by it in the matter - which the court found to effectively be stating that "...the provisions don't require us to do it in a timeline."
Noting that it was an admitted position that five out of six positions were vacant, the Court told the Centre that the vacancies had to be filled up expeditiously and within a timeline. The court said, "The mere fact that persons of eminence, ability and integrity have to appointed, does not mean that the said appointments would not be expeditiously made."
A division bench of the Delhi High Court said that it was not inclined to issue notice on a plea seeking declaration of the Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) Fund as an authority falling under the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, it listed the case for hearing April, with another pending plea seeking declaration of the fund as "public authority" under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The petitioner's contention that PM Cares falls under the definition of "State" under Article 12, is based on the argument that it is "deeply and pervasively" controlled by the Government of India which also controls the fund, seeks donations on its behalf and grants it assistance in the form of various privileges, exemptions and benefits.
6. Delhi High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of "Stubborn Reluctance To Wear Masks Properly" On Flight; Issues Guidelines [Court on its own Motion v. DGCA & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar took suo motu cognizance of what he described as an "alarming situation" on an Air India flight bound towards Delhi from Kolkata on Mar 5, issued a slew of directions to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and commercial airlines in the country with respect to in-flight Covid-19 protocol.
The Bench noted that "though all the passengers had worn masks, many passengers had worn the masks below their chin and were exhibiting a stubborn reluctance to wear their masks properly."
7. Promotion Of Candidate Will Take Effect From Date Of Eligibility And Not Date On Interview: Delhi High Court [Dr. Kiran Gupta v. Delhi University & Ors.]
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the promotion of a candidate would take effect from date of eligibility and not from the date of interview as per the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) governed by the UGC Regulations.
The prayer in the three petitions, filed on behalf of Dr. Kiran Gupta, Prof. PB Pankaja and Manju Arora Relan, sought for the promotion to the post of Professor from the post of Associate Professor with effect from the date of eligibility and not from the date of interview at Faculty of Law, Delhi University. The Court held that there was a clear demonstration of prejudice against the Petitioners, and held that their promotion would relate back to their date of eligibility.
Other developments:
- Delhi High Court Extends Parole To Former Haryana CM Om Prakash Chautala In Teachers' Recruitment Scam Case
- It Is Now Becoming A Trend To Register FIRs Alleging Sexual Harassment Cases To Force a Party To Withdraw Complaint Or To Arm Twist A Party:Delhi HC
Gujarat High Court
1. Gujarat HC Proposes To Prohibit Social Exclusion Of Women Based On Their Menstrual Status At All Private And Public Places, Including Religious & Educational [Nirjhari Mukul Sinha v. Union Of India]
Underlining that all religions (excluding Sikhism) refer to menstruating woman as "ritually unclean", a Division Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ilesh J. Vora proposed to prohibit the social exclusion of women on the basis of their menstrual status at all places, be it private or public, religious or educational.
It was hearing a PIL filed in connection with an unfortunate incident wherein, over 60 girls in a hostel of Shree Sahjanand Girls Institute in Bhuj town of Kutch were reportedly forced to strip to "prove" they were not menstruating.
2. Surge In COVID Cases- "Civic Polls, Careless Attitude of People Once Again Spoilt The Show": Gujarat High Court Issues Suggestions To Govt. [Suo Motu v. State Of Gujarat & Ors.]
Observing that the elections of the various civic bodies at different levels and the carefree attitude of the people has "once again spoilt the show", a division bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice J B Pardiwala issued few suggestions for the State Government to consider for tackling the situation emerged due to rise in COVID-19 cases.
The Court also directed the government to ensure that people who come to the Government hospitals should not be deprived of the essential medical services on account of the shortage of equipment, medicines, and lack of other infrastructure facilities.
Access Full report to read directions
Himachal Pradesh High Court
1. Even If Judge's Wife Is Distantly Related To One Of The Petitioners, This Nowhere Implies That Such Judge Is Prejudiced: Himachal Pradesh High Court [Rajeev Bhardwaj v. State of H.P. & Ors.]
Holding that even if the wife of a Judge is distantly related to one of the petitioners, this nowhere implies that such Judge is prejudiced, a Single Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara dismissed a plea seeking a declaration of a sitting Judge's dissenting view as Coram non-judice and non est in the eyes of law.
The private respondents alleged before the Court that wife of Justice Sureshwar Thakur (who gave the dissenting pronouncement in a particular Judgment) is related to the wife of one of the Appellants.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
1. Mehbooba Mufti's Plea For Issuance Of Passport: Jammu & Kashmir HC Seeks External Ministry, Govt's Response Within 2 Weeks [Mehbooba Mufti v. Union of India & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey sought government's response on a plea filed by the former Chief Minister of J&K & Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti over delay in issuance of passport to her allegedly for want for police verification.
The Court was informed that Mufti had applied for a fresh passport in December 2002 as her passport expired on 31st May. It was contended before the High Court that as per circular instructions issued Ministry of External Affairs Government of India, the passport of an individual is to be issued within 30 days but in the instant case, despite a lapse of three months, the passport has not been issued to her.
2. E-Connectivity Issues At Courts In Jammu & Kashmir: High Court Directs BSNL To Convene Meeting With IT Staff & NIC; Submit ATR [Court on its own motion v. Government of India & Ors.]
Taking note of connectivity issues faced by many Courts in the Union Territory, a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sindhu Sharma directed Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to sit with the IT Officers and resolve all the issues cropping up in the High Court as well as in the Subordinate Courts.
The Bench was referring to three issues: (i) e-Connectivity of Courts; (ii) e-connectivity of High Court; and (iii) Lack of connectivity/communication in areas of UTs of J&K and Ladakh. During the hearing, Amicus Curiae Monika Kohli informed the Bench that BSNL is unable to provide proper and suitable services.
Jharkhand High Court
1. 'Shameful, Disturbing': Jharkhand High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Murder Of A Family As Part Of 'Witch-Hunt' [Court On Its Own Motion v. State Of Jharkhand & Ors.]
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad suo moto cognizance of the 'disturbing' killings of five members of a family in the State, including a five years old child, allegedly as an outcome of a witch-hunt.
At the outset, the Bench expressed displeasure at the fact that the evil of witchcraft still persists in the modern civilized society. "This is not only shameful but also raises a serious question upon the entire system as to how in the present modern civilized society such type of incidence has taken place," it remarked.
Karnataka High Court
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty orally directed the state government to make a statement if it was willing to make an inquiry whether any money was collected by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev's Isha Foundation or Isha Outreach by projecting "Cauvery Calling" as a project of the State government.
It made the observation after the government clarified that "Cauvery Calling" is a project of Isha foundation/Isha Outreach and that it was not a project of the Government of Karnataka.The Government of Karnataka is not funding this project or providing government land/private land for the project.
2. Karnataka's Restrictions On Travel From Kerala Against Centre's Orders: Karnataka High Court
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty rebuked the Karnataka Government for not modifying the order by which it imposed restrictions on travel from the neighbouring state of Kerala.
Although a statement was made by the government advocate on the last hearing date (March 5) that the order will be modified, the court was informed that the State government has not modified the order dated February 18, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of District Disaster Management Authority of Dakshina Kannada, by which it restricts entry of people from Kasargod district in Kerala to Dakshina Kannada district in Karnataka only through four checkpoints, and that too on producing a negative RT-PCR test certificate.
Taking strong exception to this stand of the Government, the Court said: "There are 25 entry points. You are limiting it to four entry points. Under what law are you doing it? You are acting contrary to the orders of the Central Government."
A Single Bench of Justice PS Dinesh Kumar passed an interim order directing TV news channels to strictly follow the ''Programme Code' defined under Section 5 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 ('Act' for short) read with Rule 6 of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994.
The order was passed on a PIL filed by an advocate affiliated to the Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) in the wake of the sex CD scandal which led to the resignation of State Minister Ramesh Jarkiholi.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay S Oka directed the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to file an affidavit within three weeks, enumerating the steps taken by BBMP on the basis of report submitted by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority which records issues raised by city residents regarding potholes, bad road and footpath conditions.
The direction was given during the hearing of a public interest litigation filed by one PIL filed by Vijayan Menon in the year 2015, highlighting the problem of bad condition of roads in the city.
5. Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against AAI, Air India Executives Over Mangalore Flight Crash [Air India Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.]
A single bench of Justice Ashok G. Nijagannavar quashed the private complaint and the cognizance taken on it by a trial court at Managluru in 2013, against the Airports Authority of India (AAI), the Air India Ltd. (AI) and its executives in regards to the Air India Express 812 plane crash incident outside Mangaluru airport, on May 22, 2010, in which 158 persons on board were killed.
It passed the order while allowing the petitions filed in 2013 by AAI and its executive Ansbert D'Souza, and AI and its executive Peter Abraham, who challenged the cognisance taken by the magistrate court merely on the basis of "deemed sanction" for their prosecution. The court while quashing the complaint observed that said "Trial court has failed to consider the closure of the earlier chargesheet on the reason that the pilots who have been arraigned as accused have expired in the air crash and also the report of Court of Inquiry."
6. Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Search Of Smartphones, Laptops, Electronic Gadgets, Email Accounts Etc [Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka & Anr.]
A single bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued guidelines to be followed by investigating officers regarding the manner of carrying out a search and/or for preservations of the evidence gathered during the said search in respect of smartphone, electronic equipment or email account.
Access full report to read guidelines
Other developments:
- Karnataka High Court Protects CBSE, ICSE Schools From Coercive Action Under Govt Order Barring Collection Of Fees Above 70%
- Karnataka High Court Orders Release Of ₹53.46 Lakh Cash Seized From DK Shivakumar's Associate
- Karnataka HC Urges Govt To Stop Public Rallies In Bengaluru Amid Rising COVID-19 Cases
- Action Should Be Taken Against Investigating Officer Who Leaks Private Data Of Accused To Third Parties : Karnataka High Court
Kerala High Court
1. Kerala High Court Issues Notice On LiveLaw's Plea Challenging New IT Rules; Orders No Coercive Action [LiveLaw Media Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Union of India]
A single bench of Justice PV Asha issued notice to the Central Government on a writ petition filed by LiveLaw challenging the constitutional validity of Information Technology (Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, notified by the Centre on February 25, as imposing "arbitrary, vague, disproportionate and unreasonable" restrictions on digital news media and social media intermediaries. It also restrained the Central Government from taking any coercive action against LiveLaw under Part III of the IT Rules, which deal with digital media regulation.
The petition was filed by LiveLaw News Media Pvt Ltd, the publisher of online legal news website www.livelaw.in, challenging the Rules as illegal and violative of Articles13,14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India and also ultra vires the parent Act, the Information Technology Act. The other petitioners in the case are M.A Rashid and Manu Sebastian, Founder & Chief Editor and Managing Editor of LiveLaw respectively.
Advocate Santhosh Mathew, appearing for the petitioners, submitted before the bench that the Information Technology Act did not confer any rule-making power on the Central Government to regulate digital media. He argued that the regulatory mechanism under the Rules are invasive, disproportionate and arbitrary. They cannot be termed as "reasonable restrictions" under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
2. Temporary Employees Cannot Be Regularised In Violation Of The Directives Of The Supreme Court On Regularisation, Kerala High Court Declares [Joy Joseph & Anr. v. Institute of Human Resource Development & Ors.]
A directive by the Kerala High Court at the tail end of an appeal judgment from February this year has now created a furore in the state; the High Court has called upon the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala to issue instructions prohibiting regularisation of temporary employees in government organisations, institutions, departments and corporations
The Bench comprising of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Gopinath P. found that orders regularising employees were being issued contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others. Declaring these 'illegal' and 'against the law declared by the Supreme Court', the Bench on its own motion impleaded the Chief Secretary and directed that a declaration to this effect be communicated to all government bodies.
Access full report to read principles for regularization
3. Kerala High Court Stays Show-Cause Notice For IGST Demand On Ocean Freight [M/S KVN Impex P Ltd. v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice AM Badar issued the notice to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) upon a plea challenging applicability of the goods and services tax (GST) on importers of goods who are not recipients of a service.
Additionally, it issued notice to the Joint Director, Directorate General of GST and the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise as well. Apart from issuing notice on the plea, Justice Badar also stayed the action of the show cause notices in the interim.
4. Can One Be Prosecuted For Defamatory Remarks In A Counter Affidavit? This Is What The Kerala High Court Held [Dr. Joy Anto v. CR Jaison & Anr.]
Observing that there was no absolute privilege against defamation available to allegations/claims in pleadings, Justice R Narayana Pisharadi stated, "Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code does not give absolute privilege to statements made in a Court of law in the judicial proceedings. The privileges recognised under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code are qualified."
The Court was hearing a case moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by one Dr Joy Anto, Chairman of M/s. Cherupushpam Kuries. He was accused by a lawyer, CR Jaison for supposed defamatory remarks published in a counter affidavit tabled in the High Court as well as in the annual report of the company. Jaison had previously served as Deputy Chairman and Legal Advisor of the company, tasked with instituting suits for recovery of sums due to the concern.
A Single Bench of Justice VG Arun dismissed the Kerala State Government's plea to withdraw the prosecution against former members of the Kerala Legislative Assembly for disrupting proceedings in the Assembly in 2015. It emphasized that the laws relating to privileges and immunities would not lie in the present case, since these benefits were provided to uphold the smooth functioning of the House. It added that the withdrawal of the case will not advance the interests of public justice.
Six members of CPI(M), including incumbent ministers EP Jayarajan and KT Jaleel, were booked under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act for creating a ruckus in the House while the budget was presented by the then State Finance Minister K M Mani. V Sivankutty, CK Sahadevan, K Ajith and K Kunhammed, who were MLAs then, are the other accused.
Other developments:
- Law Is A Noble Profession, When Entrusted With A Brief, A Lawyer Should Try To Protect Clients' Interests: Kerala HC
- Kerala High Court Closes Suo Motu Extension Of Interim Orders, Lifts Stay On Recovery/Dispossession
- Kerala High Court Raises Permissible Number Of Daily Pilgrims At Sabarimala Temple As 10000
Madras High Court
1. Exercise Restraint If Sri Lankan Fishermen Stray Into Indian Waters, Persuade Lankan Authorities To Do Same In Case Of Indian Fishermen: Madras HC To UOI [KK Ramesh v. Government of India & Ors.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice R. Hemalatha asked the Union of India to persuade the Sri Lankan authorities to desist from taking extreme measures in case Indian fishermen, accidentally or otherwise, stray into Sri Lankan waters without 'being jingoistic or parochial in the matter'. "It is the same restraint which ought to be exercised by Indian authorities when it comes to Sri Lankan fishermen", it added.
The observation was made in a plea pertaining to the recent killing of four Indian fishermen who had strayed into Sri Lankan waters or, at any rate, had crossed the international maritime boundary line. The Plea sought directions to the Union of India to arrest and cease the murder accused Srilankan Naval Personnel and their Naval Boat who killed 4 Indian Fishermen on 18th January 2021.
2. Make Every Effort To Protect Temple Properties Across State, Mobilize Funds To Maintain/Restore Temples: Madras High Court Directs Govt. [A. Radhakrishnan v. Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative (Inspections) & Ors.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice R. Hemalatha directed the State Government to make every effort to protect temple properties all over the State and to mobilize the funds for the purpose of the maintenance, upkeep, and even restoration of temples. It observed, "Temple lands often fall into disuse and are encroached upon and waterbodies within temple lands become virtual public properties without any protection. It is imperative that appropriate measures are taken in such regard all over the State."
The Court was hearing a plea seeking directions to State Government, among others, to constitute Committees to inspect the records maintained by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Officials all over the State as well as the records maintained by Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Thirukoil Temple and other temples all over the State.
Other developments:
Meghalaya High Court
1. Petition U/s 482 CrPC Challenging Domestic Violence Act Proceedings Maintainable: Meghalaya High Court [Masood Khan vs . Smti. Millie Hazarika]
A Single Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh held that petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before it challenging Domestic Violence Act proceedings is maintainable.
In this case, it was contended that the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005 are purely civil in nature and the relief contemplated under Sections 18 to 22 are civil reliefs with no criminal liabilities and as such, the enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, which will attract the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Court noted that the Section 28 of the DV Act specifically provides that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 as well as Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though liberty was also given to the court to lay down its own procedure. The court further noted that the applicability of Section 28 of the DV Act in criminal proceedings was emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja case.
Orissa High Court
1. No Right Accrues In Favour Of Bidders Of A Tender Offer Unless The Same Is Approved By Higher Authorities: Orrisa High Court [M/s. Ashirbad Industries & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.]
The writ petitions filed by participants of a tender offer challenging the action of the Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer in cancelling the tender was dismissed by a Bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice BP Routray while holding that when the tender is yet to be approved by higher authorities, no right accrues in favor of the participants, and they cannot challenge the action of the authorities in cancelling the tender.
In this case, a joint writ petition was filed by the petitioners challenging the cancellation of Tender Call invited by the Executive Engineer, Bhubaneswar to execute the Hydro Mechanical Gate works under different Civil Divisions. The petitioners in this case were successful bidders, however, there was a delay in finalizing the tender process. The petitioners thereby filed individual petitions before the Court, and in the meantime, the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer passed an order intimating the rejection of tender as the tender documents were found defective and the discrepancies regarding "Structure and Organization", "Plant and Equipment" and "Performance record" were noticed during re-scrutinization.
Patna High Court
1. Ascertain Infrastructure In Existence To Cater To Girl Students' Needs In Various Educational Institutions: Patna HC Constitutes 3-Member Committee [In The Matter of News Report Dated 10.04.2018 Published in Hindi News Daily Hindustan Patna Live v. The State of Bihar and Ors]
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar constituted a Committee of three Lady Advocates to visit a list of Educational Institutions to ascertain the exact status of the existence and functionality of infrastructure to cater to the needs of the girl students in such institutions. It ordered thus after perusing the affidavits filed by the Universities indicating the infrastructure available in the educational institutions.
2. Patna High Court Suggests Reservation For Transgender Community On Regular Basis Under OBC Category; Asks State To Take The Final Decision [Veera Yadav v. Govt. of Bihar]
"May be, reservation on regular basis can be confined upto O.B.C. category for transgenders," contemplated a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar while hearing a writ petition filed against pitiable condition of the transgender community in the State of Bihar.
It observed, "A decision in the affirmative would not only uplift the lifestyle and education of the persons, but also going to be a correct step in bringing them into the mainstream."
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1. Protection Of Runaway/ Inter-Faith Couples : Punjab & Haryana High Court Suggests Steps At Executive Level [Lovepreet Kaur & Anr v. State of Punjab & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan expressed concern over the enormous number of protection petitions being filed before it by runaway and inter-faith couples. While stating that the genuine cases of threat are often overlooked amid a pile of cases that are filed on a daily basis, the Bench suggested several steps to make the executive responsible for offering protection to the lives of such couples, so that burden on Courts is reduced.
Access full report to read suggestions
2. "Cannot Be Morally Accepted In Society": P&H HC Declines Protection To Couples In "Contractual Live-In-Relationship"Which is Not A "Marital Relationship" [Moyna Khatun & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.]
A Single Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan registered its disapproval of 'new concept of contractual Live-In-Relation' backed by a deed, wherein parties state that their live-in-relationship is not 'Marital Relationship'. It opined that "especially stating (in the deed) that it is not a 'Marital Relationship' is nothing but the misuse of the process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society."
The Court was hearing a plea seeking issuance of direction to official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of the private respondents. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Petitioners had executed a deed of Live-In-Relationship dated 04th March 2021 and certain terms and conditions have been settled in the deed of live-in-relationship by way of mutual consent.
3. No Inherent Right Vested In Husband Or His Relatives To Claim Custody Of Minor Girl By Filing Habeas Corpus Plea: Punjab & Haryana High Court [Ranjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.]
Underlining the principle of paramount welfare of child, a Single Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri held that a minor girl who marries with her consent and refuses to stay with her parents, can be sent to child protection home. It said that there is no inherent right vested in the husband or his relatives to claim custody of the minor girl by filing writ of habeas corpus.
"Keeping a minor girl child in such like circumstances either by an order of judicial Court or by the Child Welfare Committee by following proper procedure cannot be held to be an illegal detention," it said. It further held that the plea taken by the in-laws of such minor girl that the marriage was performed with the girl's consent would pale into insignificance in view of the fact that child marriage itself is an offence.
4. Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Deportation Of Indian Origin Person To Kenya [Jugraj Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.]
In a petition raising an important question with regard to Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 which envisages an opportunity to be heard before taking any decision, a division bench consisting of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh, while issuing notice of motion to the parties, issued stay orders on the deportation of the petitioner to Kenya till next date of hearing.
In view of the grant of Kenyan citizenship to petitioner, his Indian citizenship automatically terminated. However, petitioner has stated in his petition that since he is born in India, has permanent place of residence in India, parents of petitioner belong to India and wife of petitioner is also an Indian citizen, keeping in view all this, Indian citizenship of the petitioner is liable to be resorted. It is the case of petitioner that he has not been given opportunity of hearing before deportation order.
5. Muslim Woman Didn't Convert To Hinduism Before Marrying Hindu Man, Marriage Not Valid But Couple Entitled To Live-In-Relation: P&H High Court [Nasima & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]
In a protection plea filed by an interfaith couple, a Single Bench of Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi observed that the marriage between a Muslim woman and a Hindu man won't be valid as the bride didn't convert to Hindu religion before the solemnization of marriage in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. It however ruled that the couple would be entitled to live in live-in-relationship in nature of marriage and also to the protection of their life and liberty.
Other developments:
Telangana High Court
A Single Bench of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao held a District Collector and two others guilty of contempt of court for wilful disobedience of its order restraining dispossession of certain farmers from their agricultural lands for the purpose of building a reservoir. It sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. They have also been directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to each of the petitioners.
The direction was made to the District Collector, Joint Collector and Administrator, (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) and Land Acquisition Officer – cum – Revenue Divisional Officer of the Rajanna Sircilla District in the State. In its order, the Court observed that the Respondent-officers had proceeded in defiance of Court's order dated October 12, 2018, and in the process, seized some land which was subject matter of a writ petition, in March 2019.
Uttarakhand High Court
The Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma, while hearing a PIL concerning Covid-management during upcoming Kumbh Mela celebrations, directed the state administration to maintain strict vigilance during the Kumbh Mela and even prior thereto, so as to reduce the possibility of Haridwar emerging as a hot bed for the spread of Corona Virus infection.
Stressing that the prisons in India continue to be rather medieval in their functioning, a Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma observed that it is high time that Jails are transported from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age. The Bench was hearing a plea, wherein the petitioners submitted that the State of Uttarakhand has failed to enact any policy or rules with regard to premature release of convicted prisoners, after they have completed 14 years of the sentence.
However, the Court further noted, "The conditions of the jails in the State is a cause of concern as the entire jail population, whether under trial or convicted prisoners, are under judicial custody." Therefore, it expressed its desire to know not only about the physical condition of the jails throughout the State, but also about the reformative techniques being used to reform the prisoners.